Talk:Martin Luther: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Jussi-Ville Heiskanen No edit summary |
imported>Richard Jensen (state) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:On the second sentence, that is anachronistic. Luther and his followers were certainly protected by princes, but state as we know it, didn't exist yet at the time, so it is somewhat out of place to mention it in an article about the person Luther. Perhaps it might be ok in an article about the longer spanning history of Lutheranism. -- [[User:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen|Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]] 08:47, 23 February 2008 (CST) | :On the second sentence, that is anachronistic. Luther and his followers were certainly protected by princes, but state as we know it, didn't exist yet at the time, so it is somewhat out of place to mention it in an article about the person Luther. Perhaps it might be ok in an article about the longer spanning history of Lutheranism. -- [[User:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen|Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]] 08:47, 23 February 2008 (CST) | ||
::the Albigensians, Hussites etc failed to "definitively break " because they were suppressed; I would say they "attempted but failed" and Luther "attempted and succeeded." The state changed over time but the state really did exist in Luther's lifetime, and the princes and kings basically took control over the Lutheran churches in their domain, I believe. (In contrast to the Catholic and Reformed states). Scholars certainly speak of the state at this time; see Philip S. Gorski, "Historicizing the Secularization Debate: Church, State, and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700," American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, (2000), pp. 138-167 in [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224(200002)65%3A1%3C138%3AHTSDCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L jstor] which notes how Lutheranism was "subjected to the supervision of the state" [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:33, 23 February 2008 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:33, 23 February 2008
One of my better essays last year was on Martin Luther. I'll see if I can dig it up from somewhere. (P.S- Should we mention anti-semitism? He did write a book with a rather nasty title lets not forget) Denis Cavanagh 06:58, 28 January 2008 (CST)
- go write ahead....I'm pretty much finished with this article. We do mention his antisemitism ( Jews were a rejected people suffering God's wrath for rejecting the true Messiah.) Richard Jensen 07:02, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Luther was the first to definitively break the unity of Roman Catholic Christendom. His Lutheran Church broke with the pope, but became subservient to the state.
- Frankly I would at the very least rephrase both those sentences. On being first to be disruptive, what would one call for instance the Albigensians? Perhaps Luther was the first to do it, and succeed?
- On the second sentence, that is anachronistic. Luther and his followers were certainly protected by princes, but state as we know it, didn't exist yet at the time, so it is somewhat out of place to mention it in an article about the person Luther. Perhaps it might be ok in an article about the longer spanning history of Lutheranism. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:47, 23 February 2008 (CST)
- the Albigensians, Hussites etc failed to "definitively break " because they were suppressed; I would say they "attempted but failed" and Luther "attempted and succeeded." The state changed over time but the state really did exist in Luther's lifetime, and the princes and kings basically took control over the Lutheran churches in their domain, I believe. (In contrast to the Catholic and Reformed states). Scholars certainly speak of the state at this time; see Philip S. Gorski, "Historicizing the Secularization Debate: Church, State, and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700," American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, (2000), pp. 138-167 in jstor which notes how Lutheranism was "subjected to the supervision of the state" Richard Jensen 15:33, 23 February 2008 (CST)